Isn't that the ideology of most people, most people don't seek others out without wanting something from them, even if that something is something they don't 'want', it's still something they may have to do, such as receiving a punishment. — Bradaction

Right. If I seek something from someone who wants me to do something I don't want to do, I won't deal with them. I'll go elsewhere. If they come to me, they take me as they find me. If Salma Hayek wants me to call her "him" then that will probably be the end of it. I George Clooney wants me to call him "her", likewise.

It's a slight irony that the future for humanity has little say is the systems that run it, people can only vote when they turn 18, meaning that there could be up to a 4 year electoral gap in issues not deemed worthy by people who are older. — Bradaction

I know humans are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Yes, we can probably try to execute more than one improvement. But some might think we should prioritize. Some might also think this pronoun issue is a navel-gazing, self-centered first world problem. After all, starvation, war, global warming and all that. I suppose one could view the pronoun issue not as a navel-gazing, self-centered issue, but an issue of trying to get us to think about and be more sensitive to others. However, we just aren't used to people self-advocating. It's much easier to have you, Bradaction, ask me to care about this or that person over there than, say, to have you ask me to think about you; or to have that kid over there demand I think about him.

:100: I try to not be an asshole I'm comfortable with it if that is the way someone wants to see me. Time for dinner.

Then it would also be Trumpian to simply call someone pronouns based on the way the appear. — Bradaction

No, it would not. Trump is a narcissist. Trumpian would be doing what the person wants, not how the person appears. So, Trump may want to be seen as a stud, but he's not. He's a slothenly POS. Should we call him "stud" because that is how he sees himself?

It has nothing to do with the importance of the person, — Bradaction

But it has everything to do with the person expecting others to find the import in them. That is presumptuous. X can see him/her/itself any way they want. That's cool. But if they expect everyone else to agree with them, that is Trumpian. And if someone does not respect their view of themselves, and they get depressed and kill themselves because some insensitive asshole doesn't give a shit about them, that's their problem.

Everyone is entitled to demand and receive respect. But respect does not constitute another agreeing with how you see your self. You can see yourself as the King of England. I'm not going to call you "Your Highness." Besides, if you do not identify as "she" are you saying there is something wrong with being a she? Are you misogynistic? Sexist? If you look like a woman and someone calls you "she" but you identify as a man, then the least you could do is try looking like a man. It's disconcerting and cognitively dissonant to call a person who looks like a woman "he". That's like trying to call Trump a stud. The brain doesn't work that way.

The utter inability to see fault in both parties is interesting, but very typical. — ssu

The utter failure in your reasoning is interesting, but very typical. In the United States we call it "Butwhataboutism". It's a stupid, intentionally distracting tactic designed to take the attention off of one side that is under discussion. Please go see the title of this thread. If you want to start a thread about the Democrats, go head on. Or, if you want to try to bring them into this discussion, go head on. I can't stop you. But don't pretend to tell me what I think about the Democrats and their faults or absence thereof. That's BS. Keep your eye on the ball. You don't have a single fucking clue what I think about Democrats. You know why? Because I'm not talking about them.

Your efforts to school us on history also fail. See the OP. It says "What about today?" Not yesterday. Not the Civil War. Not the 60s. TODAY!

And the sad thing is that these two parties sustain their power grab of the political field by making it so toxic and polarizing. — ssu

This also smacks of another disgusting trait we find here in America. It's that proclivity of the media to give equal time to both sides of an issue, even if that means giving equal time to facts, on one side, and blatant fucking lies on the other. That is not journalism and it's the cause of, and not the result of, a toxic and polarizing situation.

Your dragging the Democrats into this is seen as an effort to take the focus off of Republicans. Your effort to toss in a token "they both do it" argument is seen as giving oxygen to liars.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. We are talking about Republicans here. They will never understand they are enemies of the Unites States of America if everyone is always giving them aid and comfort by attacking Democrats, or by giving Republican lies equal time, as if there is any credibility there.

You want to fix Dems? Go there. But don't try to school me about what I think on that issue.

Using the correct pronoun is simply commonplace regardless of the gender of the person. A woman misgendered as a 'he' would be immediately apologised to and the statement of incorrect genders would be retracted. — Bradaction

It sounds cold, but unless I want something from you, I'd just avoid you. The burden is upon me if it is me seeking to engage. Otherwise, you can leave, or I'll send your saddle home.

This seems like it is quite ignorant, you may not give a shit, but when it has been proven that using the correct pronouns can reduce the chance of that person becoming depressed and committing suicide, would you still claim that you have no moral responsibility if one of these actions are committed? Regardless of this, is it still right to not give a shit when these actions do affect the potentially safety of an individual? — Bradaction

I guess I'm just lucky in that I am happily lacking in social intercourse. I live in the sticks and rarely go to town. When I do, I don't engage much, especially when a pronoun would be called for. Don't worry, I'll be dead in 30 years or less and you all can hug each other while you piss on my grave. LOL!

But I take your question seriously and here's my answer: First, I would never intentionally offend. It sounds like I get a pass for the first innocent mistake. But neither will I spend an ounce of effort trying to please someone I don't care about. So if I'm called out, then, rather than offend, I'll walk away and won't have anything to do with you. If you kill yourself over that, I won't feel an ounce of guilt. You need thicker skin to live in this world.

Also it does not seem accurate to imply that it is too difficult to refer to someone as 'they'. This is because they is very commonly used in place of a gender pronoun, when one does not have any knowledge of the gender of the person they are referring to. I.e. Whose phone is that? 'I don't know, they left in a hurry." — Bradaction

Hell, I didn't know I could use "they." I thought I might get strung up for using "they" if "they" wanted to be called "she" or "it" or "he" or L or G or B or T or Q or whatever. I use "they" all the time. And "you" and "people." But I can get in trouble for saying "you people." In boot camp I got in trouble for saying "you". "Private calling me 'ewe'? Do I look like a female sheep, Private?"

I think everyone should grow a fucking hide.

That parties have dramatically changed in time is in my view a noteworthy fact, not something totally unimportant. — ssu

The reason I discount it is because I'm sick and tired of all the MAGAttes trying to act like they stopped slavery. They use it as a selling point to blacks: "Hey, how can you trust Dems? They fought against your emancipation and us righteous Republicans liberated you." BS. It's not a party thing, it's a liberal/conservative thing.

For something about which no fucks are given, this topic attracts a lot of posts. — Banno

Speaking for myself, I give a fuck about shit I don't understand, especially when I am, or might be held to account for it. I suppose someone imputing to me a motivation for my lack of consideration is not unlike me refusing to use their preferred pronoun: They are presuming I don't like them when that is not the case, and I'm presuming they are X when they are not X. We are both wrong. But they might pump the breaks on their assumptions if they expect everyone else to do likewise.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Just because someone doesn't use a preferred pronoun, even after they've been told repeatedly, does not mean they are fucking with you, or they don't like you, or they think you can't be that way. It could be that they just don't care enough about you to make a mental note. If the perpetrator of "genocide" wants to engage the person then the burden is on him to work some courtesy into his/her/it's communication. But if the "victim" is the one making contact, they should go some where else if they don't like what they are getting. When they go, they should not fall into the trap they eschew by speculating about motivation. If they want to know, ask.

There a generational differences, just like regional differences. Out west, lynching and nooses have exactly zero to do with race. It's usually related to horse theft or other vigilante justice. But nowadays, the southern connotations have to be considered everywhere. It's a mistake, however, for someone to impute racism every time they see a noose. If they want to know, ask.

But in the end, as someone who is ready, willing and able to turn over the reigns to AOC and younger generation, I don't like being out of the loop. I'm trying like hell to understand what would make a person think they are or should be so important to a stranger.

No. This is what young people suffering looks like. — Isaac

:100: :up:

Denying someone's identity is tantamount to genocide. — K Turner

You should refer to me as "Your Majesty."

How long would it take you to notice the issue if people started referring to you as a different pronoun when you misgendered someone? — K Turner

Water off a duck. Call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

It's because dumb boomers don't care - even the leftist ones. — K Turner

Bingo!

Oh, come on, you have got to be more creative than that! — baker

After the misgendering thread, I'm thinking I'm just a curmudgeon and plum out of creativity. :yikes:

Okay, I went and read the rest of your post and no, it did not change my opinion. It's almost Trumpian, to me, for someone to assume they are important enough for others to remember their name, much less their preferred pronouns. But I was wrong once, so it's possible I could be wrong again. If you jump to the conclusion that I hate you or don't respect how you understand yourself just because I don't track along with you on your little journey, then you would be making the mistake. I'll back your hand if someone gives you shit about your journey. Other than that, I say get over yourself.

As someone who identifies as non-binary, and understands that Gender is separate to Sex, it is astounding to me how people who claim to be in support of the LGBTQIA+ community continue to misgender and use incorrect pronouns. What is most concerning about this, is that it seems to be a systematic denial and refusal to accept Gender non-conforming people into society. — Bradaction

I stopped there and did not read the rest of your post. My wife and son and I were just talking about this the other day. I'm sure you and they are right, and I am wrong, but when it boils down to it, I'm just lazy and I don't give a shit.

For me to use the proper pronouns makes the improper assumption that I care about you more than I care about anyone else. Unless and until you do something that really makes me want to remember you, then we'll all be lucky if I remember your name two nano-seconds after you tell me as I look you in the eye and shake your hand. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would expect anyone to give more than two shits about their name, much less pronoun preference.

I've always been astounded (and looked up to and admired and respected) people who remembered other people's names without having really developed any kind of relationship with them.

But that doesn't mean I don't support people's rights to swing any damn way they want.

Now maybe I'll go back and read the rest of what you wrote to see if it changes my position any.

Don't "love your enemies", because what comes of it is not love, it's passive aggressiveness. — baker

I know, right? How am I supposed to work around that, all MLK and Gandhi and shit? I know very well what the alternative is and I'm trying to avoid that. It's certainly not my nature.

But I've always been attracted to being different from the pack, and doing things the hard way; and loving these worthless bastards has got to be the hardest thing in the world!

So the history that Jefferson Davis was from the Democratic Party is totally unimportant here? — ssu

Yes, it is totally unimportant. You see, the United States Republican Party used to be liberal and the United States Democrat Party used to be conservative.

It doesn't matter what a political party was for earlier (before the parties switched voters)? — ssu

No, it does not. The OP said "What about today?"

Either way I'm confident he won't get what he so richly deserves on this side of the grave. Them's the perks. — 180 Proof

This is true. Even if he got a real cell, instead of a golf-course spa prison for rich people, he'd still have Secret Service guys standing outside his cell making sure bubba didn't make him his bitch. There is no justice, especially when it comes to the likes of him.

If everyone were taught analytic and critical thinking, then we would welcome stupidity as a form of diversion, entertainment, humor. From Kremlin-planted division, to cable news, to Q; it would all be harmless; laughable; teachable. But when people are uneducated in thinking, they think education in thinking is all about what to think, as opposed to how to think. Therein lies the danger: anti-intellectual fear of fact. You can't even get them to want to learn how to think because they think they are being brainwashed. Doh!

Sorry — TheMadFool

You are sorry. It was implied in your statement. You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement. TheMadFool is a sorry person.

It was implied by your statement. — TheMadFool

No, it was not implied by my statement. It was implied in your mind. If I say X trumps Y if Z, then I have not said X trumps Y. Only a dummy would think that.

I'm just like you so — TheMadFool

No, you are not.

You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement. — TheMadFool

I have and I do.

speak of the devil and the devil will appear — TheMadFool

Fuck the devil.

Synthesis, check;
3017amen, check;
Apollodorus, check;
TheMadFool, check.

Buh bye!

It's strange how age imparts credibility. Supercomputer generated climate models are a dime a dozen, but if the 1912 editor of the Commonwealth of Columbia Cryer said it, it must be true! — counterpunch

Not strange at all. The "I told you so" aspect of it refutes the open conspiracy of ignorance and forgiveness. I think it's important for future generation to know we were lying sacks of shit when we pretended that we didn't know better. And when we pretended we were doing it "all for the children" (when we were really doing it for our own selfish selves, that next man-toy, vacation, McMansion, etc.).

You can't blame people for operating rationally within the reality presented to them. Not even the: — counterpunch

See, you are already making excuses for us. I can blame us for operating irrationally with the reality presented to us 100 year ago and every day since the 1960s. You see, it shouldn't take your johnny-come-lately computer models and science to make us do the right thing. Had we just been required to post a bond with our personal property, we wouldn't be here in a "too-late" status quo.

A viable alternative needs to be an attractive offer; — counterpunch

No, it does not need to be attractive. It needs to work. If that's magma, fine. I've got no truck with your magma gospel. Get out there and get it done. But in the mean time, people should be forced to own up to what they are doing.

Imagine if Big Tabaco had just been required to put up or shut up. All the champions of free market capitalism need to be forced to abide their own rules and quit socializing their costs. Want to pump a billion tons of shit in the air? Okay, pay everyone what they demand for their air in a negotiation. (I'm not selling.) Either that or keep your poison on your own property. And if we all agree to "look the other way" in an open conspiracy, because we all want to drive cars, then pay true cost of doing so. We are going to do that. And so are our kids.

It's a good thing I don't live in a city. :grin:

There's exigency aplenty to come if we don't develop an adequate alternative to fossil fuels, you can bet your bottom dollar on that! — counterpunch

You are correct, and I would bet my bottom dollar on that. I wish "the other side" would bet their bottom dollar on their position. But they won't be forced to do so. They will just shrug, and say "oops!" And future generations will forgive them, saying "Well, they didn't know any better back then." Thus, they have no incentive to change their minds. And I'm not talking about the big exec. I'm talking about the knuckle-dragging muscle truck moron rolling coal.

On the point of "knowing better", while I haven't vetted this, check it out, from 1912: https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-in-1912-linked-coal-to-climate-change-2018-8

Meh. I try to focus on what was said and not who said it. That said, I will develop a sense, over time, of who is a waste of time. But I rarely care if others think others are a waste of time or not; unless, the aforementioned sense tells me that X's opinion of Y might be worth paying attention to. But I'll not get that from a rating system. I'll get it from what was said.

Put up or shut up on the question of whether to continue to use fossil fuels, or stop suddenly with no back up plan in place? That's not a choice. If the question, rather, were for science to put up or shut up on a viable alternative to fossil fuels, that might offer people a choice. — counterpunch

You didn't read. I said we'd continue on our merry way, not "stop suddenly."

But even if we did stop suddenly, that is a choice. History is replete with examples of sudden, uncontrollable change that we responded to. In fact, some of our best work comes out of exigency. Time-shmime. Cut off the petroleum tit and see how fast your magma or whatever the hell else gets done.

Regardless, that was not my proposal.

You made the statement, "choice trumps life" and since nothing is more important than life to pro-lifers, it follows that choice is priority #1. — TheMadFool

I made the statement of "choice trumps life" in a simple, well-explained context of abortion. You then made the fundamental mistake of saying that I must be saying that all choice in all cases trumps all life. That is stupid. That is not what I said. That is not the pro-choice position. I keep trying to explain this to you. You simply cannot jump from the specific to the general. Stop doing that. It makes you look stupid.

Please don't take this the wrong way but you need to be more aware of what you're saying/writing and if you can't do that, don't worry I'm in the same boat, at least listen to what others have to say. G'day. — TheMadFool

Please take this any way you want, but you need to be more aware of what you're reading and if you can't do that, you are alone here. I've listened to what you have to say and you are wrong to tell me that I am inconsistent in my pro-choice position. I am not. I am 100% consistent. You just can't handle it so you struggle and strain to jump from the specific to the general, or wax on about toes and fingers and legs and other irrelevant noise. I already explained to you, as if I was talking to a child, that I will stipulate to the fetus being a full-blown human being, so your example of parting out whatever the hell you want to call it does not matter. It's called an "even-if" argument. School yourself.

Finally, the devil better get himself a better advocate or he'll end up talking to a hand.

Isn't what you're saying (the) premise of The Handmaid's Tale (book)? — 180 Proof

HA! I had to google it (never read it) but yes, that's the idea.

:100:

If I were fool, and were to use his illogical extrapolation arguments, I'd say that if the state can mandate a slave must carry her owner to term, then, by logical extension, the state can breed women like cattle and have them be baby factories. I know you are not saying that, but that's the kind of reasoning he is using with the notion that if all women aborted then all people would cease to exist and there would be no choice.

Me thinks he's being intentionally obtuse.

It's an old trick you'll find in an old book on logic. You should familiarize yourself with it, it's helpful. — TheMadFool

The only trick is your foolish extrapolation from the case in point to a generalization about power and choice. Try to keep your eye on the ball. We are talking about abortion here, not some general principles of power and choice beyond the criteria I laid out for you. You are trying to make a philosophical debate where none exists.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand yourself - all that I've said are corollaries of your very intriguing statement that "choice trumps life" which essentially means choice is all that matters. — TheMadFool

I understand my argument just fine. You are trying to say that if I say X then I must also be saying XX. I'm not. I'm saying X. Keep your eye on the ball, fool.

Do you mind if other people's choices impact you negatively, such sometimes involving the possibility of much suffering and even death? — TheMadFool

I do mind. But some things are subordinate to others. When it comes to a women's choice regarding that which resides within her body, all other considerations are subordinate to her choice.

If "no" then you're advocating a free-for-all, no-holds-barred contest for power which, interestingly, you associate with choice. A very good observation to my reckoning but is that what you want? I'm not so sure but isn't democracy, the "dominant" political system in the world today, the surest sign of humanity's frustration with power? Choice is everything -> Power is a must -> Suffering galore -> Exasperation -> Choice is not everything. You don't have to agree of course and do forgive me if I've strayed off-topic, it just seemed relevant.

If "yes" then choice isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Other things, like life, are equally if not more important. Also, what's choice without life, right? Before one can even begin to think about choice, one needs to be alive and ergo, if choice is that big a deal, life, the sine qua non, must be as/more vital to us. :chin: Another good point, in my humble opinion, against pro-choicers: if every pregnancy were aborted then humanity would die out and choice would be rendered meaningless - Dodos can't choose! — TheMadFool

I don't understand any of what you just said in those paragraphs. I think it is entirely possible that you did not understand anything I said in my paragraph about power. The state (power) gets to decide who can kill who, and under what circumstances it can be done, if at all, with impunity. In the case of a human being living inside the body of another human being, the state can (and I think should) delegate that power to whoever has someone else living inside of them. In that case, choice trumps all else.

The rest of your ramblings are nonsensical.

so utterly corrupted by lies — Wayfarer

Where they lose me on the Big Lie is the fact they disavow numerous different court decisions from numerous different judges in numerous different jurisdictions, many of which have a known conservative bent, and some of which were even appointed by Trump. That is a Q-level conspiracy that would have those judges towing a line. And Q is indisputably bat shit crazy.

They Big Lie dummies had the Executive so that's off the plate. Congress is corrupt, so I will throw them that bone. And the media does lack credibility, so they've got that too. But to say the judiciary somehow is overlooking the notion that Trump won the election? That's just fundamental stupidity.

I often wonder why Congressmen/Senators don't stand up on their hind legs and call out the base (Trump is beyond hope). I know some of the legislators disagree with the base, and I know some of them are willing to lose their seat on principle. So the only thing remaining that would keep them from standing up is personal threats of physical violence against them or their family. That I can understand. I would hope the FBI would be looking into that as much, or more than even the January 6 BS.

If you can make an otherwise honorable legislator tow your political line under threat against them or their family, then you are irretrievably a villain and should be dealt with summarily.

But if it's not that, then fuck 'em.

plus inconsistency isn't something that bothers you all that much. I don't blame you for such an attitude because there's a lot at stake for a woman. — TheMadFool

Inconsistency bothers me a great deal. It's just not an issue with my position. The only thing at stake for a woman is her right to choose.

If abortion is made illegal, it limits, some would say severely, a woman's freedom - she's first stuck with the fetus for 9 months, then with the child for another 18 - 20 years. — TheMadFool

My position is not concerned with her loss of freedom, the pregnancy, the life of the child after birth. That is all irrelevant noise from my position. My sole concern is her loss of choice.

A promising lead if one takes the fact that abortion has been equated with homicide into account. — TheMadFool

I have and will stipulate that it is indeed homicide. I'll not get lost in a debate over whether the fetus is human. I will stipulate that it is human and that all the rights that attach to a full grown person attach to the fetus. Thus, killing it is homicide. Irrelevant to my pro-choice position, which is only about choice.

As you already seem to know, I've been hyperfocused on a single inconsistency: wanting to destroy the fetus is to worry about what the fetus can become (a baby) and thinking that we can destroy the fetus is based on what the fetus is/is not (not a baby). — TheMadFool

As I said, that doesn't matter. I will stipulate to your position. There is not inconsistency in my position. I say she can kill it no matter what it is.

I was talking to my son about this today and came up with the following analogy: Let's say Kevin Hart somehow ends up inside of Shaquille O'Neal's body. My position is that Shack can kill Kevin Hart at any time for any reason in any way, and with impunity. There! We have two men, which takes the female/fetus/baby issue (all irrelevant distractions) out of it. The choice is the host's and it supersedes any right to life that the occupant might have.

The powerful get to decide who, if anyone, gets to kill anyone else with impunity. Quite simply, the powerful have power over life and death. The powerful have choice.

Sometimes the powerful will cede choice to the individual. Pro-choice says that a host gets to kill any other person who resides within the host’s body. Host-choice is preeminent over occupant-life. A host then has power of choice over the life of an occupant.

Choice trumps life. Simple, consistent.

Some people like to argue. In their disagreement, they will try to muddy the waters with issues about when life begins, sentience, pain, what the occupant looks like, the Bill of Rights, rape, incest, life of the host, life of others, like the father, blah, blah, blah. And some suckers on the pro-choice side will get sucked down that rabbit hole and start trying to parse shit that needs no parsing, and then the “debate” is on.

But in the end, it’s about the power to choose vs the right to life. I believe the powerful should cede choice to the host. I believe the powerful should stay the fuck out of the doctor’s office and the decision making (choice) process of the host. All those little bits of noise are, or should be entirely within the purview of the host to be dealt with in the privacy of the host’s blood-pumper and brain-housing group.

Whether the choice is easy or extremely difficult for one host or another is nobody’s business but the host.

Does it? — frank

Yes.

Doesn't that seem childishly black and white? As if the other side isn't equally corrupt? — frank

No, Frank, it does not. We are not talking about "the other side." We are talking about fascist nationalist racist evil. The truth has a liberal bias. Good does not sit around and give the benefit of the doubt to King George, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Emperor of Japan, Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump or any other worthless POS. The Republicans made their bed when they threw Elizabeth Cheney under the bus. She was the last conservative Republican. She was the last straw. She was their last chance. They can't un-fuck that mess. True conservative Americans need a new party. They don't need to jump in bed with "the other side". But they need to disown America's enemies. They need a real leader.

:100:

Let's make people put their property where their mouth is. At the end of thirty days of individual research, everyone has to choose: Stop petroleum hydrocarbon use or continue it. Then we continue it. If it turns out we were wrong, all those who chose to continue it forfeit all they own to those who chose to stop. If it turns out it was no big deal, all those who chose to stop it forfeit all they own to those who chose to continue. Or we could up the anti and kill the losers. Or, we could require the posting of bonds. Or we could require insurance and let the premiums set by the insurance companies based upon market assessment of the science determine which way we go.

Any of these would force an honest assessment of the science out into the daylight of the market where people would put up or shut up.

But this whole open conspiracy where we agree to do what we think might be wrong simply because we don't want others to tell us to stop what we are doing is just BS. It's gambling with our children's future and in the end we all get to say "oops! Sorry!" DOH!

Republicans like Trump because he hates the same people they hate. It's all about the hate. I was quite the hater until I saw them do it, and then, not wanting to be like them, I decided to try to love my enemy. Jeesh! What a long hard slog that is! It's so much easier to hate. And, I have to admit, I kind of like hating. But I do want to put as much distance between me and them as I can, which means I have to try and love them. Yikes!

Nevertheless, if the pro-choice position fails to make a stand that's internally consistent, it won't have many takers. Right? The pro-choice movement must first make sense, only then can it hope to gather supporters. — TheMadFool

I guess I'm having a problem with painting something like "the pro-choice movement" with a single brush. I'm pro-choice as they come and my position is 100% internally consistent. Just because some pro-choice people get sucked down a rabbit hole of noise, arguing about stupid things like "when life begins" etc. doesn't mean that placing choice over life is inconsistent.

However, before we go into such detail, we need to get our hands on the bigger picture - — TheMadFool

I've already dealt with the bigger picture, in this thread, yesterday. As stated, this "detail" and "finer points" question is really just noise. Idle curiosity on my part. No big deal if you don't want to opine on it.